Will George Zimmerman be innocent or guilty for the death of Treyvon Martin?

Don't think the number of jury members will play a factor in this case. It will be jury demographics.

I think, like with our Supreme Court, the whatever the majority says, so goes the verdict.

However there should always and only be an odd number or jury members, so as there is never a hung jury.

The presence of one oddball on the jury (even if it a "voice of reason") can throw out the whole verdict in many cases. Needing a unaminous vote is foolish.

 

Jury demographics depend on voir dire.

 

So Florida doesn't just use 6 man jury's like you said ?

 

They do use a six man jury unless its murder 1.. but don't take my word for it.. Look it up.

 

Margot, you didnt have an " unless" . You said....

Originally Posted by Margot
Florida has a six person jury..

Look it up.... they also use 12.

 

Florida, like most states, routinely uses juries of only six members. The exception is for first-degree murder, which gets a 12-member jury.



http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/are-floridas-six-member-juries-constitutional/961812

 

I think it's pretty clear that George Zimmerman had a very very adversarial relationship with the local law enforcement. That is why they are trying to railroad him. That is the only reason he was even charged. In such a clear case of self-defense no reasonable, rational and honest jury will convict him.

 

Why was there an adversarial relationship between Zimmerman and local law enforcement? Maybe they were as sick and tired of him as we all are.

 

Well.. George was a pest who claimed the SPD was corrupt and incompetent..

George's testimony will probably convict George. He kept changing his story.

 

Having served on juries before there is no way anyone can answer this question. What evidence will the prosecution present? How will the defense introduce reasonable doubt related to that evidence in the minds of the jury? When the witnesses testify how much creditability will they create with the jury?

A trial by jury is an adversarial process where neither the prosecution or the defense is seeking to establish the truth. Based upon this adversarial process it is hoped that the jury can reach a decision on what the "truth" might be but actually knowing the truth is rarely the case.

Opinions based upon what we've read in the news provides no clue at to how the case will be decided by a jury. Some of what we've read isn't even admissible in court and is purely prejudicial in nature.

In the end there is no way on Earth I can even guess what the jury will eventually decide. The prosecution, that has the burden of proof, can completely blow the case as we saw in the OJ Simpson case where the prosecution didn't even address the fact that leather shrinks when it gets wet which is why the "gloves" didn't fit OJ anymore.

What I do know is that the death of Martin was completely unnecessary and it happened because Zimmerman was a complete idiot. Whether Zimmerman's actions because he was an idiot was criminal will be up to the jury.

 

He brought attention to the nepotism and corruption of the pigs.

For instance...

[video=youtube;BHGEam82GME]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHGEam82GME[/video]

He also went to a city hall meeting and demanded that the police chief be denied a pension from the taxpaying public.And also demanded that the police do their (*)(*)(*)(*)ing job. You know, those kind of things.

 

He stood up in some council meeting and said they were lazy...

 

So, despite Zimmerman having an adversarial relationship with the police, he still got off easy for assaulting one. Is this what you call "railroading"? It seems that Zimmerman got off very lightly for what was originally a felony.

 

Yeah, that too. And rightfully so. He's a very brave citizen.

 

He's an attention whore who thinks he is smarter than everyone else..

Look, George is a first class fool who couldn't finish school in 7 years.. couldn't pay his rent, was frequently on unmployment and couldn't abide the simple training of Neighborhood Watch.

 

Typical of you. YOU put up 'word-games/personal insults all the time then when someone calls you on it you go whining into your 'old country' tactic: "But YOU do not have the right according to the rules of this forum to insult me, by supposedly "subtle attacks" by implying that I am both stupid and in jail. You may think that you are "cute. . . . ". I personally have another term in mind, but I will not fall for your baiting.

Now. . . .who is stupid here?"
I like the last few words where you predictably turn around and have the temerity to say" "Now who is stupid here?" Have you no sense of shame?

 

Your comments are so pathetic!

Yes, I was born and raised in Belgium. . and VERY proud of it.

I have lived for 42 years in the US (mostly) and have CHOSEN to become a citizen. . .I didn't just "fall" into being a citizen.

And there is NOTHING that Belgium should be ashamed off that hasn't been greatly surpassed by the history of this country.

I love both countries, but I am not blind to the shortcomings of either.

However your constant attempts to "shame" me for having been born and raised in Belgium are laughable and stupid.

Get over it. . .continuing those attacks only makes you look and sound foolish and petty!

 

The poll is interesting , seems the Martin maniacs are a vocal minority .

 

Got any pictures of the injuries the liquor agent he allegedly assaulted suffered?

Didn't think so.

Face it, pigs will be pigs.

 

I went to school in Lugano and wintered in Andermatt.

 

Thanks Pardy.. I speak a smattering of French, Italian and Arabic.. not fluent.. just enough to get around.. I am certinly no linguist.

 

How can Zimmerman be innocent? The nation has already convicted of second degree murder. His sentence is the only thing that remains to be decided. Ask how he will be punished, not whether he is guilty.

 

Nations don't convict.... juries do.

 

And juries convict, or don't convict, based upon the evidence, testimony, arguments, and the law and not based upon what the "media" reports that is often prejudicial and not admissible in court.

The actual question presented for the thread cannot be answered by anyone, period, because there is no actual foundation for it. It would be different if the court proceedings were televised so we could know the evidence, testimony, and arguments presented in court and the jury was in deliberations. We could have made an educated guess in the OJ Simpson trial that was televised but here the case hasn't even been presented in court and we don't have a clue as to what the prosecutions case will be and the prosecution has the "burden of proof" in a criminal case.

 

Why not? Worked for Dubbya and Iraq.